Donald Trump\u2019s rhetoric moves people. He moves people to HATE him or LOVE him.<\/p>\n
No matter what you think of Trump\u2014his words hold power.<\/p>\n
You may laugh and go, oh, Janet, no, they don\u2019t. I\u2019ve spoken to people who believe, the more crazy things Trump says, the more people are driven to vote against him in November.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t count on that.<\/p>\n
Donald Trump repeatedly talks about the silent majority. \u00a0You can\u2019t be a moderate conservative and\/or a moderate liberal and speak out. You may sound irrational for agreeing with certain policies that you like, whether it be Democrat or Republican, that others have already decided is the CORRECT opinion about that policy.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t like labels and have decided not to pick a political \u201cteam.\u201d I\u2019m voting for the person.<\/p>\n
Why?<\/p>\n
Neither political party holds all my beliefs. I like some Republican policies, and I like some Democrat policies. It\u2019s called being a moderate\u2014a centrist. Just because I don\u2019t like Trump, does not mean I don\u2019t like some of the policies that come forth by the Republican Party. Just because I don\u2019t like Bernie Sanders does not mean I don\u2019t like some of the policies that the Democrats propose. I think voting in one ideology over and over again is dangerous. No one side, Democrat or Republican, has the right answers. I\u2019m sorry to tell you\u2014they don\u2019t. It has ALWAYS started with us\u2014The American Citizen.<\/p>\n
Why did I feel anxiety by writing the above paragraph? Because I\u2019m supposed to be outraged by every little word and every little action. And, yet, as much as I don\u2019t like Trump\u2014I don\u2019t want to spend my energy feeding his ego by being outraged.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s what he wants.<\/p>\n
The silent majority is real. Let me explain this concept\u2014The Spiral of Silence.<\/em><\/p>\n We, as humans, fear isolation. If we speak out about controversial topics, for example, over social media, the fear of the mob mentality attacking you is real. What do we do? We keep silent. Even though you may disagree with the so-called \u201cpopular opinion,” you may keep silent. If your friends are saying, \u201cAnyone who voted for Trump is a racist.\u201d And you voted for Trump, and you know you\u2019re not racist, you just wanted to keep your more conservative views in check\u2014you might find yourself not speaking out to defend your opinion on why you voted for him. And vice versa. Radical conservatives will also try to silence moderate conservatives and moderate liberals. Logic is not met well on either side of the radical aisle.<\/p>\n The polls showing Joe Biden in the lead could be misleading. Why? The spiral of silence. If the LOUDEST voice you hear is to vote for Biden or afraid of the assumptions that could be made about you by your answer\u2014you might help skew the polls by not sharing your most honest opinions.<\/p>\n In 2016 Pew Research Center <\/em>tried to explain why the 2016 election polls missed it:<\/p>\n Some have also suggested that many of those who were polled simply were not honest about whom they intended to vote for. The idea of so-called \u201cshy Trumpers\u201d suggests that support for Trump was socially undesirable, and that his supporters were unwilling to admit their support to pollsters. This hypothesis is reminiscent of the supposed \u201cBradley effect,\u201d when Democrat Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles, lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election to Republican George Deukmejian despite having been ahead in the polls, supposedly because voters were reluctant to tell interviewers that they were not going to vote for a black candidate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cHow we Conducted our \u2018Shy Trumper\u2019 Study\u201d<\/a> found that GOP voters were less likely to say they support Trump during live interviews than they did via an online self-administered interview.<\/p>\n The Spiral of Silence in collecting data for accurate political polls is real.<\/p>\n A group of George W. Bush administration staffers created a PAC called 43 alumni for Biden<\/a>.<\/p>\n 43 Alumni for Biden<\/em> is speaking out on an issue that not many want to talk about in the Republican party, which is being a lifetime Republican and voting for the Democratic candidate. Why? Silenced into retreat.<\/p>\n The group reassures Republicans that just because they vote for Biden doesn\u2019t mean they abandon their political beliefs.<\/p>\n Many of us remain Republicans! We are proud of the sound principles that guided our time working together and remain grateful to have campaigned, voted and worked for so many great Republican leaders through the years. We endorse Vice President Biden not necessarily in opposition to any political affiliations, but rather in patriotic duty to our country over any one person or political party.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Their mantra \u00a0is \u201cPrinciples matter more than politics.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Bari Weiss, the former opinion editor for The New York Times,<\/em> writes in her resignation letter<\/a>,<\/p>\n Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Her resignation follows a controversial op-ed The New York Times<\/em> published by Senator Tom Cotton<\/a>. After a social media backlash of allowing a sitting Republican senator to write an op-ed, The New York Times<\/em>\u00a0caved to the criticism by saying it fell short of their standards. The Washington Post writes:<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n How could a newspaper intent on airing differing opinions and diverse voices decide that a sitting U.S. senator\u2019s viewpoint didn\u2019t measure up? Allowing a senator to espouse thoughts one might find objectionable is exactly the point of the op-ed page. The walk-back plainly had less to do with standards and more do to with the simple fact that Cotton thought the \u201cwrong\u201d thing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s why Weiss resigned. The New York Times <\/em>did not stand behind the decision that all opinions matter. The New York Times <\/em>was shamed into silence by social media users who decided Cotton didn’t have the RIGHT opinion.<\/p>\n We need to read opinions that challenge us. I hope that you disagree with me now, but also all while critically thinking about this subject. Everyone is afraid to discuss politics because they are afraid of being canceled. Instead, people will feel shamed into silence.<\/p>\n If we censor speech in newspapers and at universities because we disagree with the words spoken\u2014Trump is the least of our problems. \u00a0Trump will win because of these extreme beliefs that we all should believe in the RIGHT opinion\u2014if you don\u2019t confirm my belief\u2014I will cancel you. As said in a letter to the editor to The Washington Post<\/a>, \u201cThe intolerant left is not seeking a battle of views; they seek to erase opposing ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n Social media will keep allowing the radical liberal beliefs to silence the centrists and may sway them to vote for Trump. I believe this is what happened during the 2016 election. It certainly is the trend during the 2020 election.<\/p>\nPolls<\/h1>\n
Party Ties<\/h1>\n
Cancel Culture<\/h1>\n